On 18 jan 2010, at 21:06, Philip JÃ¤genstedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:51:38 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Philip JÃ¤genstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
>>> We might still have to discuss if we want to tolerate some invalid
>>> percent-encoding and if non-UTF-8 encodings should be possible. (I think
>>> both are a bad idea.)
>>
>> How is non-UTF8 encoding for other URI schemes dealt with?
>
> I assume behavior is wildly different for different MIME types. For HTML the fragment component is decoded using the document's encoding, which leads to fun bugs when a browser guesses the wrong encoding of the document. If we allow non-UTF-8 encodings we have to determine it by context somehow, which is easy to break when copying URIs or if the environment somehow changes. Clearly, my "vote" is for mandating UTF-8 for now and change it only if there are implementation issues or feedback during last call.
Fully agreed.
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman